Polarized Versus High-Intensity Multimodal Training in Recreational Runners

Abstract

Recreational runners achieved similar improvement in 5-km performance and body composition through polarized training or CFE, but POL yielded a greater increase in VO max. Extrapolation to longer distances requires additional research.

Physiological differences between advanced CrossFit athletes, recreational CrossFit participants, and physically-active adults

“…Evidence of CF training being more advantageous towards developing a variety of fitness outcomes in comparison to alternative training strategies (e.g., resistance training, high-intensity interval training) is equivocal [19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. This is likely because most comparative training studies have utilized untrained or novice (to CF) participants, which is problematic because they do not require a very specific or intense training stimulus to elicit adaptations compared to experienced trainees [26].…”

The Multimodal Nature of High-Intensity Functional Training: Potential Applications to Improve Sport Performance

“…Recently, Carnes and Mahoney [24] compared the effects of a multimodal training program that combined interval training with HIFT sessions to a polarized endurance training program on maximal oxygen consumption (VO 2max ) and 5-km performance in a group of recreational runners. Over 12 weeks, the multimodal group performed short (30–60 s) and long intervals (1.5–6 min) at the participants’ maximal sustainable effort, in addition to HIFT sessions consisting of a strength activity followed by an intense circuit, while the polarized training group followed a traditional running program.…”

“…Over 12 weeks, the multimodal group performed short (30–60 s) and long intervals (1.5–6 min) at the participants’ maximal sustainable effort, in addition to HIFT sessions consisting of a strength activity followed by an intense circuit, while the polarized training group followed a traditional running program. While the improvements in the VO 2max were greater for the polarized group (4.3 ± 3.6 vs. 1.78 ± 1.9 mL·kg·min −1 ), performance in the 5-km time-trial improved to the same extent in both groups, leading the authors to conclude that recreational runners can obtain a similar degree of improvement in the distance using either approach [24]. In addition, the multimodal training group had a lower running volume during the intervention, highlighting the potential that HIFT has as a time-efficient training strategy.…”

“…The main benefit of HIFT lies in the fact that it can challenge multiple systems in the body in a single session, with the potential to increase aerobic power and anaerobic capacity, as well as muscular endurance, strength, and power, while positively impacting body composition and work capacity [16,17,19]. Similar interventions have shown positive results in athletes [2], and a recent study demonstrated that HIFT elicited a similar improvement in a 5-km performance in recreational runners with a shorter time commitment [24]. It is possible then, that the multimodal nature of HIFT could provide a time-efficient alternative to traditional resistance and circuit training.…”

The Effect of a Short-Term Training Period on Physiological Parameters and Running Performance in Recreationally Active Female Runners

“…A study from Muñoz et al (2014) suggested that PET training can stimulate greater training effects compared with a programme at threshold range intensities in male recreational runners. PET has also shown benefits in raising VO2max compared to cross-fit endurance training in female runners (Carnes & Mahoney, 2019). A recent systematic review of middle-and long-distance runners compared PET to pyramidal training and threshold training (Kenneally, Casado, & Santos-Concejero, 2018).…”